Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

Now we have ‘anti-Lechmerian zealots.’ Unbelievable considering the way Cross crusade is promoted. Cross fanatics desperately want three witnesses to be wrong to avoid Cross being at work when Chapman was killed. So much so that they ask us to believe that John Richardson sat on a step, seeing the entirety of the yard according to him (and knowing exactly where the body was found) with an horrendously mutilated corpse lying no more than 12 inches (probably less) from his left boot; and with him saying that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. Yeah right.

Cross had been at work for 90 minutes when Annie was killed and any suggestion that Cross, with a schedule of deliveries to make, left a cart full of meat unattended in crime central full of people who didn’t know where their next meal was coming from, to kill and mutilate a woman and he then leapt back on his cart to carry on working is nothing more than a joke. Not to mention the risk of someone mentioning seeing a cart (even a Pickford’s one) near the scene. It can’t be taken seriously for a second.

Cross found a body and nothing more. As a suspect he’s a non-starter.

Good points, but the meat cart is a Lechmerian illusion. Pickfords was a general goods service - we have no idea what Lechmere might have been picking up or delivering on any given day.

[A P Tomlinson]

Is he trying to brute force Lechmere into the 1988 FBI profile?

No, I was mistaken as to his source, he's using a general symposium on serial killers from 2005 to show that any attempt to profile the Ripper that doesn't land at the door of 22 Doveton St can be ignored.

Here is the second paragraph from the introduction...

Serial murder is a relatively rare event, estimated to comprise less than one percent of all murders committed in any given year. However, there is a macabre interest in the topic that far exceeds its scope and has generated countless articles, books, and movies. This broad-based public fascination began in the late 1880s, after a series of unsolved prostitute murders occurred in the Whitechapel area of London. These murders were committed by an unknown individual who named himself “Jack the Ripper” and sent letters to the police claiming to be the killer

...followed by a copy of the "Dear Boss" letter.

It goes on in part 1 to describe the "Myths" about serial killers, and gives examples of some of those that buck the trend.

Largely speaking, most of the "Myths" debunked are the sort of things that people who have spent time looking at murders and even listening to True Crime Podcasts are aware of. It essentially boils down to "It is impossible to categorise serial killers under any other marked bracket THAN Serial Killer" but it does act as a very convenient list for people wanting to put someone in the frame to dismiss pretty much any marker that doesn't apply to their candidate without having to lose the ones that work in your favour.

Given the (mis)use of the English language I'm no longer sure I'd trust the FBI to find it's own arse with both hands and a map.
For example:
"All serial murders are not sexually-based" has a very different meaning to "Not all serial killers are sexually-based" the FBI went with the former...

Part 2 is about defining the term "serial murder" and talks about all the various deifnitions used over the years and ultimately concludes.
• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

Part the third... Causality, asking the questions what makes someone into a serial killer.
As I'm sure you can imagine, no specific common factors are agreed upon as being applicable to every killer.

4... Psychopathy.
"Attendees at the Serial Murder Symposium agreed that there is no generic profile of a serial murderer. Serial killers differ in many ways, including their motivations for killing and their behavior at the crime scene. However, attendees did identify certain traits common to some serial murderers, including sensation seeking, a lack of remorse or guilt, impulsivity, the need for control, and predatory behavior. These traits and behaviors are consistent with the psychopathic personality disorder. Attendees felt it was very important for law enforcement and other professionals in the criminal justice system to understand psychopathy and its relationship to serial murder."

Part 5 Motivations and Types.
As you can probably guess, this topic is quite extensive, and ultimately declares that there is no absolute common factor.

Part 6 covers investigative techniques, and goes into some detail about the processes an investigative lead should undertake in order to apply best practices. Talking about such broad issues as "Communication" or "Data Management" and liasing between departments. It is a lengthy section as it goes into each subject individually.

Part 7. Details the use of forensics... it covers a lot of ground and is largely what you would expect it to be in terms of "DNA and fibres are GOOD! Don't contaminate them!!!"

Part 8 and onwards deals with things like Prosecuting a case in court, handling the press and media, and it ends with a thank you to all involved...

The introduction is the only reference to The Ripper other than a mention-by-name in the section that talks about media and public interest in unsolved cases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good points, but the meat cart is a Lechmerian illusion. Pickfords was a general goods service - we have no idea what Lechmere might have been picking up or delivering on any given day.

Fair point Fiver, I shouldn’t have assumed meat. It’s because meat gets mentioned so often as a way of saying ‘even if Cross had blood on him he could have said that it was from handling near at work.’

[IchabodCrane]

I'm fairly certain you'll find most people here subscribe to the possibility that witnesses can be wrong ,mistaken and or lied . Whether that be in the case in Chapmans murder or Stride's.

The problem there being, their preferred witness/s Are often elevated ahead of others at the expense of ignoring the above, or at least accepting the equal possibility.

I agree. In the absence of clear established facts, we should use probability to approximate the truth. If mathematical probability is employed to calculate e.g. the probability of 4 murder sites being located on someone's way to work, how high is the mathematical probability of 3 witnesses all being wrong about a time of death after 4.45 ?
That being said, I am somewhat 50/50 on Lechmere because I do agree with his supporters that in a modern day investigation he would first need to be cleared before looking elsewhere.

[Geddy2112]

That being said, I am somewhat 50/50 on Lechmere because I do agree with his supporters that in a modern day investigation he would first need to be cleared before looking elsewhere.

Do you not consider it would have been the same in the 1880s? Surely he thoroughly investigated. I'm still rather sceptical in Paul's involvement in all of this.

[Fiver]

Fair point Fiver, I shouldn’t have assumed meat. It’s because meat gets mentioned so often as a way of saying ‘even if Cross had blood on him he could have said that it was from handling near at work.’

Which is still nonsense. Even a slaughterman would have been suspicious if he showed up for work covered in fresh bloodstains.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is still nonsense. Even a slaughterman would have been suspicious if he showed up for work covered in fresh bloodstains.

Cross would have said that he’d washed his face before leaving the house and some water had splashed onto some dried blood causing it to look wet.

Come on…you’ve heard worse.

[Geddy2112]

Come on…you’ve heard worse.

'Lechmere is Jack The Ripper, the torso killer and killer of every woman in the east end of London in the 1880s.'

[Fiver]

I agree. In the absence of clear established facts, we should use probability to approximate the truth. If mathematical probability is employed to calculate e.g. the probability of 4 murder sites being located on someone's way to work, how high is the mathematical probability of 3 witnesses all being wrong about a time of death after 4.45 ?

Contrary to what the Lechmerians say, only two murder sites were on his known route to work. They were also on Robert Paul's way to work, so this proves nothing.

For Chapman's time of death we have the doctor's estimate versus three witnesses. In crime fiction doctors estimates are very accurate. Modern forensics has shown they are not, especially the techniques used in the Victorian era.

Witnesses can lie, seeking publicity. The witnesses in the Chapman case don't come across that way to me, Long didn't see the man's face and reports no sinister words or actions. Cadoche only heard, not saw things, and they sound mundane, not sensational. Richardson saw nothing and placed himself at the scene with a knife in his hand.

Unfortunately, a lot of people accept or reject witnesses based on whether they support their theory, not based on actual credibility.

That being said, I am somewhat 50/50 on Lechmere because I do agree with his supporters that in a modern day investigation he would first need to be cleared before looking elsewhere.

Lechmere was not the only man to be alone when he found a body. They don't insist that we must rule out Alfred Crow before considering that anyone else could have killed Martha Tabram. They don't insist that we must rule out John Davis before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. They don't insist that we must rule out Lewis Diemshutz before considering that anyone else could have killed Liz Stride. They don't insist that we must rule out Edward Watkins before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. They don't insist that we must rule out Thomas Bowyer before considering that anyone else could have killed Mary Kelly.

Anyone who finds a body is a person of interest. Ignoring all other suspects to focus on them is bad policing.

Also, when we look at Lechmere as a suspect, we have to look at all the murders. Chapman was killed when Lechmere was at work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have meant staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

[Fiver]

'Lechmere is Jack The Ripper, the torso killer and killer of every woman in the east end of London in the 1880s.'

Some Lechmerians extend that well before and after the 1880s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was probably Jack the Stripper.

[A P Tomlinson]

Contrary to what the Lechmerians say, only two murder sites were on his known route to work. They were also on Robert Paul's way to work, so this proves nothing.

For Chapman's time of death we have the doctor's estimate versus three witnesses. In crime fiction doctors estimates are very accurate. Modern forensics has shown they are not, especially the techniques used in the Victorian era.

Witnesses can lie, seeking publicity. The witnesses in the Chapman case don't come across that way to me, Long didn't see the man's face and reports no sinister words or actions. Cadoche only heard, not saw things, and they sound mundane, not sensational. Richardson saw nothing and placed himself at the scene with a knife in his hand.

Unfortunately, a lot of people accept or reject witnesses based on whether they support their theory, not based on actual credibility.



Lechmere was not the only man to be alone when he found a body. They don't insist that we must rule out Alfred Crow before considering that anyone else could have killed Martha Tabram. They don't insist that we must rule out John Davis before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. They don't insist that we must rule out Lewis Diemshutz before considering that anyone else could have killed Liz Stride. They don't insist that we must rule out Edward Watkins before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. They don't insist that we must rule out Thomas Bowyer before considering that anyone else could have killed Mary Kelly.

Anyone who finds a body is a person of interest. Ignoring all other suspects to focus on them is bad policing.

Also, when we look at Lechmere as a suspect, we have to look at all the murders. Chapman was killed when Lechmere was at work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have meant staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

When you get past the issue of the name, which was the big "We Cracked It!" moment for them and they've had to grasp straws ever since it was shown that there was nothing unusual in using a stepfathers surname, all the evidence they offer pretty much applies to Davis, but he WAS genuinely alone with a body and no one to corroborate that he wasn't the killer.
Surely their "Lechmere was caught with a freshly killed body" is less incriminating than a guy reporting finding a body without anyone to corroborate that he hadn't recently been elbow deep in that body's viscera.

And I'm not advancing Davis as a suspect... he's a terrible suspect.
But the time he spent alone with the body cannot be corroborated, so technically he could have found a woman sleeping on the stairs, lost his mind and murdered her, and made it look like the Ripper to cover his arse, cleaned up, burned his bloody clothes and reported "finding" a body and step backout of the limelight. (Insert whatever spurious motives ytou normally apply to Lechmere, and lets go!)

I have to be careful now when being sarcastic, because Ed is reading these, and I had to explain to him that when I said the Doveton Street was as likely a base for the Ripper as The Taj Mahal... he actually took me seriously.
So... for the record Ed. I do not think Jon Davis killed anyone. Simply by the standards you apply to Lechmere, he is a more likely suspect.

And Ed wanted me to tell that, "...embittered gaggle on the nutcase forum, that no one has suggested Lechmere abandoned a meat filled cart while he murdered Chapman a few streets away. Carts were however frequently left for hours awaiting unloading - not I suspect when they were loaded with perishables - and they were looked after by cart minders such as Elizabeth Long. I suggested his delivery could have been anywhere within 15 minutes walk of Hanbury Street which is a huge chunk of London. If those embittered souls want to critique the theory, itvwoukd do them a minor service if they at least got it right"

It would be odd if his excuse for being covered in blood was absent... if the cart DIDN'T have a load of dripping bloody meat on it though, wouldn't it?
I thought that was the whole point of that bit of "evidence"?
"Jesus Christ Almighty Charley! You were delivering curtains to the Pemberton House.... how the Hell did you get covered in blood?"

On a less frivolous note, it seems like just another of those crazy extreme gambles that just happened to pay off, that he was willing to go-a-hunting and leave his cart unattended half a mile away on the chance that it MIGHT not get robbed.

[Abby Normal]

When you get past the issue of the name, which was the big "We Cracked It!" moment for them and they've had to grasp straws ever since it was shown that there was nothing unusual in using a stepfathers surname, all the evidence they offer pretty much applies to Davis, but he WAS genuinely alone with a body and no one to corroborate that he wasn't the killer.
Surely their "Lechmere was caught with a freshly killed body" is less incriminating than a guy reporting finding a body without anyone to corroborate that he hadn't recently been elbow deep in that body's viscera.

And I'm not advancing Davis as a suspect... he's a terrible suspect.
But the time he spent alone with the body cannot be corroborated, so technically he could have found a woman sleeping on the stairs, lost his mind and murdered her, and made it look like the Ripper to cover his arse, cleaned up, burned his bloody clothes and reported "finding" a body and step backout of the limelight. (Insert whatever spurious motives ytou normally apply to Lechmere, and lets go!)

I have to be careful now when being sarcastic, because Ed is reading these, and I had to explain to him that when I said the Doveton Street was as likely a base for the Ripper as The Taj Mahal... he actually took me seriously.
So... for the record Ed. I do not think Jon Davis killed anyone. Simply by the standards you apply to Lechmere, he is a more likely suspect.

And Ed wanted me to tell that, "...embittered gaggle on the nutcase forum, that no one has suggested Lechmere abandoned a meat filled cart while he murdered Chapman a few streets away. Carts were however frequently left for hours awaiting unloading - not I suspect when they were loaded with perishables - and they were looked after by cart minders such as Elizabeth Long. I suggested his delivery could have been anywhere within 15 minutes walk of Hanbury Street which is a huge chunk of London. If those embittered souls want to critique the theory, itvwoukd do them a minor service if they at least got it right"

It would be odd if his excuse for being covered in blood was absent... if the cart DIDN'T have a load of dripping bloody meat on it though, wouldn't it?
I thought that was the whole point of that bit of "evidence"?
"Jesus Christ Almighty Charley! You were delivering curtains to the Pemberton House.... how the Hell did you get covered in blood?"

On a less frivolous note, it seems like just another of those crazy extreme gambles that just happened to pay off, that he was willing to go-a-hunting and leave his cart unattended half a mile away on the chance that it MIGHT not get robbed.

hi ap
to me, people like davis, crow richardson would definitely need further looking into and if i were a detective i would question them long and hard and check alibis.

re davis, he wasnt seen near chapmans bady before raising any alarm. he found the body and got help. lech was seen near nichols freshly killed body before he is doing anything else, trying to find help, raising the alarm etc. to me thats odd and where any possible suspicion starts for me with lech. ive seen and read alot of true crime for many years and ive never heard of any innocent witness in this type of circ.

and yes, from what we know davis is a terrible suspect, but then again so are all of them. some are just less terrible. and imho lech is less terrible than many. and from my objective no dog in the fight view, the anti lechers can be just as zealous as the lechmerians on these boards.

[Lewis C]

When you get past the issue of the name, which was the big "We Cracked It!" moment for them and they've had to grasp straws ever since it was shown that there was nothing unusual in using a stepfathers surname, all the evidence they offer pretty much applies to Davis, but he WAS genuinely alone with a body and no one to corroborate that he wasn't the killer.
Surely their "Lechmere was caught with a freshly killed body" is less incriminating than a guy reporting finding a body without anyone to corroborate that he hadn't recently been elbow deep in that body's viscera.

And I'm not advancing Davis as a suspect... he's a terrible suspect.
But the time he spent alone with the body cannot be corroborated, so technically he could have found a woman sleeping on the stairs, lost his mind and murdered her, and made it look like the Ripper to cover his arse, cleaned up, burned his bloody clothes and reported "finding" a body and step backout of the limelight. (Insert whatever spurious motives ytou normally apply to Lechmere, and lets go!)

I have to be careful now when being sarcastic, because Ed is reading these, and I had to explain to him that when I said the Doveton Street was as likely a base for the Ripper as The Taj Mahal... he actually took me seriously.
So... for the record Ed. I do not think Jon Davis killed anyone. Simply by the standards you apply to Lechmere, he is a more likely suspect.

And Ed wanted me to tell that, "...embittered gaggle on the nutcase forum, that no one has suggested Lechmere abandoned a meat filled cart while he murdered Chapman a few streets away. Carts were however frequently left for hours awaiting unloading - not I suspect when they were loaded with perishables - and they were looked after by cart minders such as Elizabeth Long. I suggested his delivery could have been anywhere within 15 minutes walk of Hanbury Street which is a huge chunk of London. If those embittered souls want to critique the theory, itvwoukd do them a minor service if they at least got it right"

It would be odd if his excuse for being covered in blood was absent... if the cart DIDN'T have a load of dripping bloody meat on it though, wouldn't it?
I thought that was the whole point of that bit of "evidence"?
"Jesus Christ Almighty Charley! You were delivering curtains to the Pemberton House.... how the Hell did you get covered in blood?"

On a less frivolous note, it seems like just another of those crazy extreme gambles that just happened to pay off, that he was willing to go-a-hunting and leave his cart unattended half a mile away on the chance that it MIGHT not get robbed.

Hi AP,

I think that what Stow is saying is that the cart wouldn't have been unattended; he would have left the cart with a cart minder to guard it. But that seems rather unlikely as well, because the cart minder could then be a witness, noting how long Cross was away from the cart and how he appeared when he returned.

[John Wheat]

hi ap
to me, people like davis, crow richardson would definitely need further looking into and if i were a detective i would question them long and hard and check alibis.

re davis, he wasnt seen near chapmans bady before raising any alarm. he found the body and got help. lech was seen near nichols freshly killed body before he is doing anything else, trying to find help, raising the alarm etc. to me thats odd and where any possible suspicion starts for me with lech. ive seen and read alot of true crime for many years and ive never heard of any innocent witness in this type of circ.

and yes, from what we know davis is a terrible suspect, but then again so are all of them. some are just less terrible. and imho lech is less terrible than many. and from my objective no dog in the fight view, the anti lechers can be just as zealous as the lechmerians on these boards.

Hi Abby

The anti lechers as you call them or as I refer to them serious Ripperologists are zealous because the chances of the witness Lechmere being the Ripper are somewhere in the region of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 per cent. Maybe they'd rather concentrate on serious suspects. I know I would.

Cheers John